Mountain Project Logo

Campus board rung training recommendation

Original Post
El Duderino · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 70

I have started campus board training as per Rock Climber's Training Manual. I did some experimentation on a few different rung sizes to figure out which I should use. I can definitely do 1,2,3,4,5 matching on the (Metolius) mediums without much difficulty. However doing ladders presents some issues. I can only do 1,3,5,6 on the mediums and then on the larges, I can do 1,3,5,7 and then cheat using 8 as an intermediary step to get to 9. I do 5 matching leading right, 5 matching leading left, and then 5 ladders for each campus workout. I want to construct a board, as I will be soon moving to a city where the gym does not have a campus board. However, I can't afford two whole sets of rungs. So, if you were in my shoes and had to pick between one size or the other, which would you suggest? Thanks.

Tony Monbetsu · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Jan 2014 · Points: 616

Personally, I would go for the larger sizes. The point of campusing is to work on power and explosiveness, not small-edge gripping. Smaller rungs exist for a reason, but I would rather have larger rungs and work on increasing difficulty via the moves, not the rungs. I'd be interested to hear any arguments for the smaller rungs, though.

Dan Austin · · San Francisco, CA · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 0

I think the general argument for smaller rungs is that they isolate finger power more than larger rungs, which engage your back and shoulders much more.

In this case, one option to consider would be mounting the medium rungs but including a kick board so you can campus with feet while you're building finger strength. If you just go with the large rungs, you'll probably progress past them pretty quickly but you don't want to go full-on on the medium rungs before you're ready.

Trycycle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2014 · Points: 699

You can build explosive strength on a pull up bar.

You can build finger strength on a hang board.

The point of campusing on rungs is to develop "contact strength" (another word for "finger power") as well as coordinate the finger strength with the arm power.

Go with the medium rungs.

Do't worry too much about laddering at first. There are a multitude of workouts that you will be able to complete on that size rung that will be better suited for the level you are at currently. In the end though, the smaller rung size will take you farther than the larger.

Tony Monbetsu · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Jan 2014 · Points: 616
Trycycle wrote:You can build explosive strength on a pull up bar. You can build finger strength on a hang board. The point of campusing on rungs is to develop "contact strength" (another word for "finger power") as well as coordinate the finger strength with the arm power.
Thanks for this. I had been thinking of campusing as being purely about power, but what you say makes a lot of sense.
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608
scienceguy288 wrote:I can't afford two whole sets of rungs.
One of the other recent threads here has at least one trick for getting more vertical ladder steps out of the same number of purchased rungs.

My main goals for campusing are hypertrophy of finger/forearm muscles+tendons; and "contact" strength for latching long deadpoint moves (since I'm not long in the "ape" department).

So I've tried hard to progress toward the Medium and then to the Small rungs. I think Dan Austin's suggestion of having a kick-board is helpful for that progression.

I originally assumed I would do longer "laddering" sequences of like 8 moves or more, but I found that I got more focused on shorter sequences of 2 or 3 or 4 moves -- on smaller holds than I could sustain for an 8-12 move sequence. Or ...

Or just recently I've gotten drawn to the more obvious challengs of bigger reaches than I could repeat -- so again I'm glad for the Big rungs. Really I think the finger hypertrophy is more widely useful and the most critical factor in the long run, but nice to have other things to add variety.

Ken
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608
Trycycle wrote:The point of campusing on rungs is to develop "contact strength" (another word for "finger power") as well as coordinate the finger strength with the arm power. Go with the medium rungs.
I think this question of "the point" of campusing is a good one.

The refinement I would suggest is that one special point of the campus board is
repetition of finger contact strength moves -- like a sequence of 8 reps or more.

Otherwise arguably you could train contact strength better with a system board.
(? or just mount a wood edge strip above and/or below your fingerboard?)

Usually the system board will offer only 1 or 2 reps for each side's hand+arm. But greater variety of hold types and configurations; greater precision of incremental progression of reach; and training of arm+finger+foot coordination with diagonal reach angles.

So I'd argue that not training with ladder sequences misses the "special point" of having a campus board.

Now myself I don't do ladder sequences much on the campus board. Mainly that's because I don't have consistent access to a system board to do shorter harder sequences. Not enough space in my home apartment; and lots more gyms have campus boards than system boards.

Two other "special" things about a campus board:
  • making moves with no feet is an interesting challenge - (just the opposite of the beginner-climbing mantra that climbing is really all about feet).
  • Train downward grasps repetitively with fingers. Latching an edge on a (non-dyno) downward move is dynamic, but not the same as a "contact" latch on an upward move. I think this is easier from a neural-control standpoint, but sometimes harder in "raw" dynamic finger strength. Again for single downward moves this could be also done (better?) with a system board.

Ken

P.S. This is making me think I should start making ladder sequences a bigger part of my campus-board training -- and find another way to train the short-sequence stuff.
El Duderino · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 70
Dan Austin wrote:I think the general argument for smaller rungs is that they isolate finger power more than larger rungs, which engage your back and shoulders much more. In this case, one option to consider would be mounting the medium rungs but including a kick board so you can campus with feet while you're building finger strength. If you just go with the large rungs, you'll probably progress past them pretty quickly but you don't want to go full-on on the medium rungs before you're ready.
Thanks for the recommendation. Do you have any images of a kickboard setup by any chance? I am not sure what that entails...
Dan Austin · · San Francisco, CA · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 0

Not my image or board, but something like this: cs.euroclimbing.com/files/2…

kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608
Dan Austin wrote:something like this: cs.euroclimbing.com/files/2…
That's the design for the lower section recommended in the Gimme Kraft book, and used by some public Euro gyms (and at least one US gym). Way more useful than the usual American gyms underhung with no footholds.

Advantage is that by being severely underhung it allows you to do special moves over the lip of the "roof" (like practice managing your feet cutting away). And perhaps it's simpler to manage the amount of assistance you're getting from putting weight on your feet (the higher the foot-rung, the less the assisance).

Disadvantage is that for moves above the "lip", it does not allow the option of touching a foot to the wall for stability (which is OK is you always want to be forced to manage body swing -- but touching foot to the wall let's you focus more on strength rather than technique, and is usually more climbing-specific).

Other approaches:
  • just extend the main board down to near the floor (so so the lower section slightly underhung). Optional to add small jib footholds.
. . . (I think full rungs in that non-severe configuration give too much foot support, and
. . . are more likely to get in the way of just touching your foot to the wall for stability).
  • place a second board vertically below the bottom rung on main board.
  • make that vertical board removable -- so then you also have the option the option practicing roof lip moves off the severely underhung footholds like in the photo Dan Austin gave.

Ken
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608
scienceguy288 wrote:I can't afford two whole sets of rungs. So, if you were in my shoes and had to pick between one size or the other, which would you suggest?
Another idea I just noticed is to try the plastic Nicros campus rungs , where the edge depth varies across the length of the hold -- thicker in its center. The idea is that you get multiple sizes on the same rung, depending on where you place your hand when grabbing it.

Ken
Micah Klesick · · Charlotte, NC · Joined Aug 2013 · Points: 3,971

Plastic for campus rungs suck. They don't soak up skin oils and sweat like wood ones due, so you do much more popping off, which is more likely to injure you.

PlanchePRO De Guzman · · Houston, Texas · Joined Sep 2014 · Points: 50
Micah Klesick wrote:Plastic for campus rungs suck. They don't soak up skin oils and sweat like wood ones due, so you do much more popping off, which is more likely to injure you.
What about the ones from Atomik Climbing
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608
PlanchePRO wrote: What about the ones from Atomik Climbing
Thanks for finding yet another option.

Interesting that they offer two shapes.
Some quick thoughts ...
  • the Gimme Kraft book says that more positive shapes for campusing tends to invite more crimp grip, less open grip. (Some authorities think that crimping on a campus board is bad).
  • more positive shape is needed for a steeper board. Metolius recommends the range 12-20 degrees beyond vertical. I suspect lots of public gyms are beyond that. Some Euro gyms use more positive shapes.
  • size: as the Atomik website suggests, the 0.5 inch depth is for really strong climbers. Not many people I see at public gyms use even the 0.75 inch.
  • size? I couldn't find where they say how long each rung is.
  • Seems to me if non-wood holds are OK for "limit bouldering" training and for system boards (and for fingerboards), they ought to be OK for campusing. - ? Just wash them every so often? Sometimes I wash the small wood campus rungs at my local public gym.

Ken
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608

Another advantage of a campus board over a system board might be to train

pushing strength of fingers and wrist (for launching long deadpoint moves).

Recently recommended to me by a strong climber who otherwise thinks that system board training is way superior to campusing. He called it "deep lock-off".

"Bumps" are what he suggested for training the ability to push with the fingers and wrist of the low hand. Keep the lower hand on the same hold, but keep bumping the upper hand to a higher rung (optionally go back down?)

This was also demonstrated and recommended in a training video on YouTube, and by another strong climber at my local gym.

Ken

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Training Forum
Post a Reply to "Campus board rung training recommendation"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.